The Emerger August 9, 2008
Posted by Damian in Living Christianity.Tags: C. Michael Patton, Catholicism, Ecclesiology, emergent, Emerger, Emerging, epistemology, orthodoxy, Parchment and Pen, politics, Reclaiming the Mind, sociology, theology
trackback
I was reading C. Michael Patton’s recent (and massive) post on emergent Christianity, which I feel identified the mindset (firstly, as a mindset and not a movement) more accurately than I’ve encountered before. Readers here know I appreciate emerging deeply, and that I identify with emerging. According to C. Michael, I’m about as emerging as you can get, although more orthodox than some. He broke emerging areas into five categories, and I ticked (a square root – √ – for the purposes of this post) most of the examples in all of the categories.
1. Emerging Ecclesiologically
√ Less tendency to have a traditional (post-reformation) church program structure
√ Movement toward house churches
√ Disdain for “mega” churches
√ Lord’s supper/Eucharist practiced every week
√ Artwork as expressions of faith
√ Traditional prayers and creeds
Candles and incense
Prayer walks
The main reason for the two I haven’t ticked here, are because of lack of exposure – I’ve never heard of prayer walks, and I don’t like the smell of incense, but I certainly don’t oppose them.
2. Emerging Sociologically
Having church service in a brewery
√ Looking like the culture (e.g. dress, nose rings, colored hair)
√ Talking like the culture (e.g. getting rid of all Christianese language, less sensitive toward vulgarity, etc.)
√ Focus on bringing about justice (liberation of the oppressed, sympathy toward aids victims, women’s rights in society and the church, etc).
√ Willing to traverse the Christian sub-culture taboos (drinking, smoking, rated “R” movies, etc.)
Ok, my church is in a cathedral, not a brewery. I believe a certain amount of glory should be brought to the table by the architecture of the church. And I think they’re gorgeous. But the rest – yeah, entirely.
3. Emerging Theologically
√ Missional focus concerning the spread of the Gospel (Christians do not go to church, they are the church)
√ Less tendency to recognize or give strong credence to traditional theological divisions (e.g. Catholic-Protestant; Reformed-Arminian)
√ Not too keen to systematic theology since to “systematize” ones theology usually implies a seemingly forced system of harmonization that is seen to be inconsistent with both human ability and divine revelation
√ Hesitancy about taking traditional labels such as Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Liberal, or even Emerger since the labels associate them with a systematized system of beliefs and thought
√ Agnostic with regards to the destiny of the unevangelized (e.g. we don’t know the eternal condition of the unevangelized)
√ Inclusivistic with regards to destiny of the unevangelized (e.g. Christ’s blood can save those who don’t have the chance to hear the Gospel)
√ More agnostic toward the nature of hell
√ Willing to see value in multiple theories of the atonement, not just the vicarious substitutionary view
√ Traditional Protestant theology of imputation questioned
On facebook, my religion is ‘Post-evangelical reformed protestant anglo-catholic’, or something to that effect. This gives a sense to my hesitancy about traditional labels. I also am wary about traditional theological divisions, as I tend to beleive that, given the lack of clarity on many issues, they are God’s gift to the diverse. I’m definitely agnostic regards destinies and the nature of hell, and inclusivistic regarding the desty of the unevangelised. I haven’t addressed atonement, but that’s because I’m not altogether convinced biblically on substitutionary, so I ticked that, too. And imputation…well, having only recently encountered Catholic theology on the matter, I’m somewhat open-minded about imputed righteousness. I feel arguments on both sides are decidedly flimsy.
4. Emerging Epistemologically
√ Suspicious of all truth claims
√ Willingness to question personal traditions at the deepest level
√ Doubt and uncertainty concerning an individualistic approach to truth and knowledge—we learn in community
√ More desirous to broaden perspectives outside subjective cultural norms
√ Recognition that our knowledge is not objective, we all learn in a biased context
√ Denial of man’s ability to have absolute certainty (this is reserved only for God)
√ More skeptical of traditional sources of information and authority (science, denominational authorities, pastors, theologians, media, etc)
√ More apophatic, emphasizing mystery and our inability as finite beings to definitely and conclusively define an infinite God
5. Emerging Politically
√ Do not identify with a political party (e.g. they should not be seen as “the republican party at prayer!”)
√ Anti-war or more pacifistic
√ Support those with environmental concerns (green peace, global warming, recycling)
There’s not much to say. I agree wholeheartedly with all of the political and epistemological examples.
So, it turns out I’m emerging. I know what I’m emerging from, but I wonder what I’m emerging into?
Wow – by Patton’s definition, I am emerging. I wouldn’t have thought that about myself. But I think I emphasize the non-pragmatic aspects of theology a lot more than the emerging types tend to.
It does sound as if you are emerging mostly into liberal protestantism, although not into its historical churches.
My impression is that mostly the label “emerging” is associated with stances taken against evangelicalism. Most of the descriptions in your list are polemical. They say what emerging is not, rather than what it is.
The epistemology you describe above reflects postmodernism, and is compatible in most respects with the epistemology (or non-epistemology, non-metaphysics) now taught in universities.
I think it is very hard to embrace the epistemology of emerging Christianity, of postmodernism, and then to answer questions like: What does it mean to be a Christian? How does being a Christian different from being nonreligious? In other words, why bother with it at all? I don’t think emerging Christianity can answer those questions without drawing from the resources of the traditions that it rejects. If it draws on them, it loses coherency.
Postmodernism has roots in the realization that God is dead, and yet I do not hear anything about that in emerging talk. Emerging talk about God, as if God matters in any way, sounds incoherent, incomplete.
From many postings at your blog, I have the impression that you have left evangelicalism and see value in an eclectic mix of Christian traditions. It is just that none of them in their totality seems to fit.
Ken,
I think you’re right in saying that ‘emerging’ is a reactionary mindset.
I can’t deny that the epistemology is a postmodern one. However, by conflating postmodernism the way you do, you encounter some problems. In me, at least, the epistemology is one of humility that I myself am a fallible being, and that there is a chance that others are also fallible. My ‘postmodern’ epistemology is not because God is dead, but rather, because I am merely human. The bible is big on such humility.
I think one thing you missed reading this, is that emerging Christianity doesn’t reject all tradition. It is simply more humble about those it accepts; you missed the acceptance of artwork as expression of faith, something accepted in traditional orthodox and catholic churches, movement away from post-reformation church structures, movement into candles and incense or traditional prayers and creeds. If anything, I want to return to Christianity’s roots, rather than the Christianity that has existed for the last hundred years.
I agree entirely that I have left evangelicalism and see value in an eclectic mix of Christian traditions. I tend to have the belief that the Christianity we have now is splintered into many denominations , each which focuses on one or two of the many truths apparent in the Gospel. None of these denominations in their totality are without their flaws; therefore, I would prefer to know as much about all of them as I can, and learn about church history and the early church such that I can believe the same thing that the apostles believed, as they were the ones closest to Christ.
Steve,
As I said, it seems to me that emerging is a mindset. I have to admit, living in Australia, there isn’t much of an emerging church here, and I’ve never met someone who I’d term emerging. But, by Patton’s definition, it certainly seems this way. I think the big thing to take away from Patton’s post (and the Tony Jones book I read recently) is that emerging is about attitudes rather than about beliefs. I would be inclined that most of those in the community of bloggers hereabouts would have some emergent leanings.